Search This Blog

Sunday, 28 April 2013

'We humbly submit that if
no idea was entertained by you. of 'breaking our
union a more successful

scheme was never
promulgated to accomplish suchan unintentional result'.

So said Mark
Hutchins,Chairman of the Gas Workers
Union, about the profit sharing scheme
set up by Livesey.At this stage perhaps, the scheme itself
should be explained and the objections to it examined.Why did George Livesey think that it would both answer his
aspirations for the South Met. and at the same time destroy the Gas
Workers Union?

The 1894 Report to the
Board of Trade onProfit Sharing gives a detailed description of
the scheme as it was originally proposed - a few
amendments were made during the period between the announcement of the
scheme and its implementation these will be discussed later.

The bonuswas paid in exactly the same way as the
shareholders' dividend under the sliding
scale.It gas based on a relationship to the price of gas.When the price of gas was not above a base price (in 1889 3/6 per
1,000 cubic feet) the shareholders received a dividend of 10 and this
dividend was lower if the price of gas 'rose.In the same way the employees received a
dividend of on a year's wages for
every 1d. the price of gas fell below a base price of
2/8d. (the actual price of gas charged by South Met. in 1889 was
2/3d. per 1,000).

All those who had signed
the agreement within the first three months weregiven a 'nest egg' - that is a sum of money
equal to the amount that they
would have had had the scheme been running for the past three
years, plus 4% interest. In order to get both bonus
and nest egg, workers had to sign an agreement to work for
the Company for twelve months at the current rate of
wages' the Company guaranteeing that these wages would not be altered
in that time to the disadvantage of the men.The nest-egg and half of the bonus was not to
be withdrawn and spent by the
men for a period.This period of time was to be the subject
of subsequent discussions between the Company and the newly
formed Profit Sharing Committee. Exceptions would be made
in the case of death or retirement but it was to be totally
forfeit in the case of strike or 'wilful injury'.

In this way the workforce was linked into
the sliding scale in the way that Livesey had suggested
fifteen years earlier. It immediately gave an
incentive to workers to lower the price of gas.Livesey had said in 1882 that 'if they were to get the
men to work heartily and thoroughly the men
must have the motiveof self interest'. He felt that if this
motive could be brought to bear on all who had any influence on
the prosperity of the Company 'it would be a good thing'.

In his address to the
professional gas institute in 1882 Thomas Travers had
suggested two ways in which workmen could influence the Company so
that the price of gas might be lowered - they could watch
every outlet of waste and 'constant effort would be made by
all to popularise and extend the

consumption of gas'.Indeed the most immediate impact of the scheme, according to
pronouncements made by Livesey, were the instances of workmen
adapting existing practicesin order to save the Company
money.Prizes and awards were instituted whereby members of the
workforce were encouraged to act as salesmen for the Company
not only for gas but also for appliances - a sales effort directed
at the growing working class custom in South London.

It is very difficult to
discover how far this scheme is a replica of the one set up
in 1886 for the Officers of the Company.The Minute Books merely say: ' that in the event of the
profit on the years'

working being sufficient
after paying interest on the debentures and
bonds to pay a dividend of not less than 14% on
capital for the year ... a bonus on the
following scale will be paid'. Although alterations were
made to the scheme in successive years, it is not clear if
it was overtly tied to the sliding scale.It is most probable that Livesey had not
managed to get the Board to
completely agree to the whole workings of the scheme.

As indicated earlier,
Livesey claimed to have thought up the whole scheme in a
quarter of an hour - but the scheme is so intricate that it
rather bears the imprint of years of gestation.

The scheme was announced
to the men in late October or November and as many as
possible were encouraged to sign agreements.On 21st November a meeting was held in the Board Room at Old Kent
Road of delegates of those workmen who had signed the
agreements.Representatives of the

Union had been invited to
attend as observers, but none came. The proceedings of the
meeting were taken down verbatim and circulated later to the
men.

The meeting began with
Livesey explaining some current difficulties in working -
of a practical nature concerning the price of coal.He talked about the threat from electricity and eventually came to the
stokers' demands.They were now asking for double time on Sundays, but
'the orange has been

squeezed dry'.He went on.. 'now the time has come
when it is necessary to have something more
than the mere labour of the worknen - we want
his interest and we wantto give him a share of the profits earned by the Company in order
to purchase that interest as well as
his labour'.

He dealt with objections
already raised and pointed out areas in which the Company was
still undecided.Some of the delegates raised points themselves
and entered into the discussions.Most

of them were on items
which worried the men; was there any way by which they could be
deprived of the bonus....were they doing the right thing in
trusting the Company in this way?

Men were afraid that small
misdemeanours might deprive them of the bonus and had been
mandated by those unable to attend to ask various questions
about this.They were also concerned to make suggestions about the
future of the scheme and point out other ways in which the
workforce might be benefitted.Henry Austin, who later became an employee director,
was moved to recite poetry - but also
to ask the Company to consider a share purchase scheme for
employees.

The major part of the
discussion concerned the agreements.Men had to sign to work for
twelve months and to remain sober, industrious and able to do
their work.They must serve in whatever capacity the Company
wanted, and obey the orders of the foreman.

Obviously the sting was
that strike action would become impossible because of the staggered
dates of notice - hence the Union's objections that 'there would be at no time
more than a few men able to take any
combined action of any kind'.

Workers were, however,
given job security through these agreements - they worked both
ways.One of the men at the
"Interview", Skinner, said: 'it appears to be a good
guarantee to me, by signing the agreement
the Company guarantee to find me
employment for the next twelve months'. Such aguarantee was a valuable thing to a weekly
paid labourer.

Many other detailed points
worried these 'loyal' workmen. Objections were raised to
the clause about obeying the orders of the foreman- suppose the foreman was acting
unfairly?Livesey answered 'it is not our policy to
support any foreman if they practise hardship
or injustice'. No doubt Livesey meant
this - but he had never worked under a foreman to know the pressures
involved.

The men persisted: 'there may be a certain
class of man who cannot satisfy the foreman
and if a man who does not like to go
tittle tattling thinks to himself that he
would like to leave ... ' If he then left in this way,
would he lose all his bonus?They were assured that all the
bonus would not be lost - a man would leave with all that was
owed to him.

Another point which
worried the men was the clause saying that they had to agree to
perform in 'whatever capacity'.That meant they could be
shifted from job to job.Suppose it was
work that a man could not do by
reason of his strength or skills - would he then be sacked.Livesey answered: 'what we would expect in
an emergency is what any of us would do
ourselves - we would lend a hand to do anything. If
a man was not suitable for one sort of
work and said 'I cannot do this or that but
I can do this and I will do it with all my
heart' - that is all we want... '.

In other words what he
wanted was 'loyalty'. This clause was objected to by the Union.
They wrote to the Company pointing out that the clause would: 'damage the Union and be
against its rules. Compelling coal porters
in time of dispute to do gas stokers work and
vice versa wouldbreak the rules of the
Unions'. Which was, of course, from
Livesey's point of view, exactly the point.

The Union continued to
point out that the Company could discharge all labourers
except the gas stokers through the slack season and 'reduce the
latter to the vacancies at reduced wages'. This point about wage
reductions should jobs be changed was brought up at the Interview.
Livesey answered: 'if a man's regular wage
is 10/- a day and he is asked to do work which is
usually paid at the rate of 5/- a day then he would
have his regular wage of 10/- and we should
give him something more. '

The Union then pointed out
another possibility: 'the agreement does not
bind the Company a rate of wages as a
class - at the date of the signing of the
agreement'. Thus, they thought, the
Company could reduce all wages at the time agreements were
re-signed.

Further discussion at the
"Interview' was focussed on the clause in the
agreements which read "the money will be
the absolute property of the men except in the
case of a strike or wilful injury to the
Company in which case it will be forfeit' . Men asked, what did
'wilful injury' mean?Did it mean

someone who 'should fall
asleep at their post as they call it in the army?'.One man, a lamplighter, quoted how he had accidentally damaged some
equipment in the course of his work - would this mean he would
lose his bonus?Livesey agreed to remove the phrase 'wilful
injury ' - the phrase meant, he explained, incidents which could be
prosecuted through the courts, they were very rare.Should a man have to prosecuted in this way
they would dismiss him, and he
could keep his bonus.

Livesey was, however, not
so accommodating in the part of the phrase concerning
strike action.Men who struck would lose both bonus and nest
egg. He was adamant in the face of protests:'we mean that he would
forfeit the whole of the money in that case
standing in his name ... we want some
protection'.

Objections were raised:
one man, Jessie Day, said "I think it would be
very hard. .. if he should lose the whole
of it'. Another said: 'If a strike turns up ...
is he to lose the whole of it because
that would not encourage the men to leave
it in. Other men explained that
the men they represented had specifically asked that
the point be raised and made clear; others that it was a
clause which was stopping many men from signing the agreements.

Livesey had asked a
lawyer. Mark Knowles, to attend and it was he who suggested
eventually: 'if it was understood that
a man on joining a strike should forfeit
what was owing to him for the last year'. Liveseythen agreed that the whole bonus need not be
forfeit in a strike - but two
years back would go.

Some changes to the
original scheme were therefore made in the face of opposition from
potential participants but money was to be kept in hand by the
Company to dissuade its owners from strike action.The nest egg was to be kept by the
Company,and the exact amountto be kept in hand was to be decided
later.Livesey had put it to the meeting; how
long did the men want it to stay in? For five years, or for
three?Many of the men said they would want their money at once,
and others that three years would be better - no one supported
five.The matter was left for the profit-sharing
committee to decide.

Men put up pleas of urgent
need for the money - for when the children were small or in
the case of long term sickness.Livesey countered all these
argumentsthe Company had always
covered extra sick payments to men
whose illness went beyond the sick pay period? they would always
lend money to men to cover unforseen emergencies; there was no
need for the accumulating bonus to be touched.Only one exception would be made 'there might be cases
where a man would like to pay a deposit on a house'. The extension of the
scheme into property investment was to become a major feature of it in
the succeeding years, as we shall see.

The Union pointed out 'it binds the labourer to
work for five years and added, more
sinisterly, that it was possible that after four and a half years of the
agreements a new and different Board might be appointed after a Board
Room coup and provoke a strike among men in order to cheat
them of their bonuses.

There were two further
points of interest in the initial draft of the scheme.One of these was the setting up of a profit sharing committee
to manage it.This was to include an equal number of
appointed management representatives and also elected delegates
from the works based on the number of workmen participating in
each workplace.The Chairman of the Company - Livesey -
was to be the Committee Chairman and to have a casting
vote.This Committee became increasingly important, as we shall
see.

Another pointer for the
future came from Henry Austin's speech requesting share
purchase facilities for workmen. It is very probable that
workmen were already buying some shares, if we are to
believe the Chairman's accusation that Livesey was promoting this
in 1875 .Livesey himself had raised this question and it is
not impossible that Austin knew Livesey's views and was putting them
forward.Livesey promised, publicly, to investigate the matter.

This then was the package
of incentives and deterrents which Livesey embodied in the
first draft of the scheme.It was a
means by which, eventually, the
workforce could be precisely controlled. The Union saw it as a
device to put them out of business -which it was.Livesey protested that he did not intend to
interfere with the Union and indeed some
men at the 'Interview' expressed their support for the principles
of 'combination'.As Livesey saw it workers were perfectly
free to give in their notices and leave South Met.'s
employment.If they did he would replace
them, individually.

The scheme was complex and
changes over the next ten years added to that
complexity.Was the manipulative
element consciously part of it in
its setting up?Did management take advantage of the
possibilities given to them as time went on?The scheme was amended and added to between
1889 and the First World War - how did
these changes affect the workforce's relations with management?

In 1889 it was argued by
the Union and by the press that the scheme had been instituted
for strike breaking purposes - and this has been the popular
view since.Livesey denied it.Despite sharp comments at the
'Interview'- 'we intend to have some protection out of
it'-nowhere else does he refer to an
immediate strike breaking
purpose.He continued to tell the men
that the purpose of the scheme was
to purchase their interest.The preamble to the rules say: 'to induce all employees
to take a real interest in the work and to give a
new motive for endeavouring to promote
the prosperity of the Company'.

A more detailed analysis
of his motives was given by Livesey in 1899 in a paper given to
the Newcastle-on-Tyne Industrial Remuneration
Conference.Having talked about the
sliding scale

and elements of
partnership to be achieved through it with customers and
shareholders, he continued ... 'two objects of equal
importance have always been kept in view, to
attach the workmen to the Company by giving them
a direct interest in its prosperity beyond
their salaries and wages, and to give them an
opportunity to practise thrift and thus
improve their position in life, to make provision
for misfortune and old age. In short to
enable them to lift themselves from poverty to
independence. '

Thus the aspirations of
the scheme can be first of all seen clearly in terms of
Livesey's general thesis of partnership of the various elements
necessary in the gas industry - capital, labour and customers.This is carried on to the idea that workers
should be involved in the
industry in which they work and that this could only be achieved through
incentives making them not only partners, but willing ones.Because of their debased positions they must
be helped, to achieve that
respectability which has given the middle classes a commitmentto both the economic status quo and a more generalised patriotic
ideal. If this could be achieved not only did the Company gain in having
the loyal workforce but the general political ideals of capital could be assisted
in a group of workers interested in what is 'good for England' -
and could only re-bound to re-inforce the position of
independent gas companies.

The key phrase is
'attaching men to the Company".The
idea thatthey were to be merely
prevented from striking is too limited. It has more to do with
Livesey's interpretation of the changes which had come about in society and
his methods of reconciliation.Livesey talked about 'the old
friendly relations' when business relations between master and man were
based on personal relations rather than mutuality of
interest'.Coupled with this analysis
of changes in industry were his own
memories of how South Met. had seemed in his boyhood - the small
works on the edge of the city, the banks of the Surrey Canal overgrown
with flowers and full of fish.To attach the men to the
Company' meant to some extent a re-creation of the relationships which
he thought had existed in that smaller industrial world.But the initiative must come from the
employers. 'It seems to be that the
employers have to choose between the division of
the industrial host intotwo hostile camps .....
and partnership'.

This attachment which the
workers should feel for the Company, said Livesey, must spring from
a feeling of ownership - of investment in and partnership in - both
the Company and the nation. 'the great weakness of
this Country is that our great working population
have no share in its vast accumulated property,
discontent will grow until it becomes a real
danger to the state'.

As London grew with its
industries, gas companies were employing a larger and more
diversified body of labour - rather than the small localised workforce of the
1840s.Many workers were seasonal with
the uncertainties that that
brought.George Livesey not only wanted
to save the industry from
strikes but hoped to make the workforce that God-fearing property
owning elite which would have enough commitment to the industry to back it
politically against muncipalisers and be worthy participants in a
community in which the gas industry was able to serve and to prosper.

Tuesday, 23 April 2013

The press began to report increased protest meetings among gas workers. At one of these,
for example: Will Thorne said 'those who signed the agreements were
cowards, tyrants and curs'.

On 2nd December the Union asked for the removal of
three retort house workers at Vauxhall who had signed the agreements and on 4th
December the Board received a resolution which the Union had sent to the
daily papers. It read: - That in the opinion of this meeing ...men who have signed the bonus scheme brought out by Mr. Livesey whom we look upon as blacklegs to our Society, is condemned by us as unjust, unfair and must be resisted and that all the men in the South Metropolitan Gas Works are justified in giving in their notices forthwith, until the same be abolished and the said men removed from the works and that a copy be sent to the Directors'

The next day a correction to the resolution was sent
out by the union, it should have read "or the said men".

By noon on
5th December 2,000 notices had been handed in. It must be made clear - and
indeed was vital to Livesey's arguments - that this
was not actually a strike, although it is always described as such.
'Strike' is a convenient shorthand term to described what happened. Under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act it
was, of course, illegal for gasworkers to strike and so it was necessary for
them to give a week's notice to terminate their employment and so the employers
had a week's notice of cessation of work. The employers could further argue - and did - that there was no need for them to negotiate with the union as men had
legitimately and legally left their jobs and they had legally and legitimately
filled .hem with new workers. The fact that the men had all left together was
unfortunate but irrelevant.

The men leaving the works were paid the lump sum due to them on their superannuation payments and it was on this that most of them lived in the coming weeks.

As they left the works a force of replacement labour was marched in under
heavy police escort and with some drama.

The Union believed that the strike had
been forced on them and published their manifesto which explicitly stated that
the bonus scheme was designed to curtail the liberty of their members.

As the
new men marched in the works were picketed. To some extent the old men had
sabotaged what they had left behind. Four days earlier it had been reported
that "unionists' had broken into a store at Greenwich and thrown blankets
into the Creek. It was remembered later that a lobby had been set on fire at
East Greenwich and equipment left set to give the maximum amount of leakage. An
effigy of Livesey was burnt outside the Pilot - a pub just outside the East Greenwich
gates.

Substitute labour had been recruited over previous weeks. Some of the
new men had come from areas like Cambridge and Sittingbourne where gas
workers traditionally spent the summer and were areas of recruitment in normal
times. Indeed the Company claimed that it was to some extent recruiting
normally to cover a winter shortfall of labour. South Met. had sent out
recruiting agents to many other areas and men came to London looking for work
having either heard of the vacancies themselves or having been sent by
relieving officers. Agents held meetings of unemployed men to recruit them as
workers. For instance at Ramsgate where the meeting was followed by a letter of
complaint from the local gasworks manager - his stokers had all been signed up by
South Met.

The use of 'free labour' in this dispute has been widely
described. It is important to note that these replacement men who marched into
the South Met. works in December 1889 were not necessarily adherants to the
'free labour' movement as described by its' activists like Collison.
John Saville in Trade Unions and Free Labour emphasises that free labourers
were 'all those who wished to make their own independent contract with their
employers regardless of the trade-union position' Many of these men (like those
at Ramsgate) probably knew nothing about the issues in the South Met. dispute
and only hoped to better their own positions.

Some accounts of the strike refer
to labour being recruited by - "labour agents'. Some of these were just South
Met. officers who had been seconded to find substitute labour in various parts
of the country. Others were independent contractors. The most prominent Free Labour activist in South
Met., C.Z.Burrows, who was Vice President of the Free Labour Association in
1896 had worked for South Met. as a blacksmith since 1883.

It is not
necessarily true that because new men were recruited to strike break that they
were conscious strike breakers - or that they understood the issues involved in
the strike, which were not straightforward. Some years later, John Burns
talking to a mass meeting about free labour, said that Livesey 'dropped
them like a hot potato and it seems that some men recruited through "labour
agents' were sometimes those classified by some as 'undesirables'. Speakers
from Union platforms complained, among others, about a contingent from
Birmingham who had come for work, not been taken on and then proceeded to cause
trouble. Police court reports list a number of convictions on drunk and
disorderly charges among sixteen-year-olds with Birmingham addresses. These
convictions were all in the Rotherhithe area and the Union claimed this as the
'undesirable element'. The
Company would not have taken on sixteen-year-olds for retort house work and it
is difficult to know what these young men could done which would have shocked Rotherhithe.

Union
pickets had some success in persuading some of this replacement labour to go home
by offering to pay fares but the press carried other stories of men who had come
enormous distances to South Met. and not been taken on. Some of these men were
taken to the local poor law institutions and to police cells.

Will Thorne and
other Union leaders were not in London at the start of the South Met. dispute.
Industrial action in Mancester required their presence and at the same time
provided a background to press stories which gave a picture of escalating
industrial action throughout the country. Such stories could only lead to
increased pressure from managements like South Met. determined to stay
in 'control' in the workplace.

Seige conditions prevailed in South Met. works.
Replacement labour learnt the work, were fed and bedded by management and were
paid a bonus for it. Rumours soon began to spread that they were mutinous,
starving, and infested with lice and disease. Some men were injured through
inexperience. Heavy fog and freezing conditions meant demand for gas was high.
Pressure and quality fell and stories of how 'Jumbo' the giant gas holder
at East Greenwich was pumped full of air to reassure the public, spread.
'Public concern' was expressed by the press concentrating on the supply of
gas.

The Times felt that "a majority of people regard this strike as
unreasonable and tyrannical". and they pointed out difficulties which,
they said, the public had in sympathising with a striking workforce which were
well paid and had downed tools to inconvenience the public on a point of
principle. Other press comments reflect a mix of views about both strike and
scheme The Standard had little difficulty in putting forwal a conventional view
which agreed with the Times' 'The Directors of the South Metropolitan Gas
Company are doing their duty in determining to resist this demand" and the Daily News was equally quick to condemn the Union; "the
unions will do themselves more harm than the employers' . But the Daily
Chronicle was also quick to condemn the 'leftward' ideas in the profit sharing
scheme; 'Mr. Livesey should leave well alone and keep his profit sharing scheme
for consumption at a Toynbee Hall meeting'. The Star however offered a
more detailed critique of the scheme - in an Editorial of 5th December they
pointed out that the cost of gas is mainly based on wage and coal costs. Coal
prices were out of the control of gas company workers, and therefore could not
be influenced by them to bring gas prices down and raise their bonus. On the
other hand if their wages rose, gas prices would rise and their bonus would be
affected. They saw the whole scheme as an attack on the union and 'wish
the gasmen every success in defeating an impudent attempt to impose upon them'
. Predictably more press outlets shared the views of the Times rather than that
of the Star - as in St. James' Gazette 'we hope that the general public will
support the gas company '.

The trade press was able to offer more
detailed criticism of Livesey and the scheme. Gas World - ever against
Livesey - was now quick to condemn the profit sharing scheme describing it as
'specious' and Livesey's behaviour as 'machiavelism'. They said that the
officers in the besieged works were being fed on lobsters. Other critics,
however, had also pointed out the supply of beer going into the works for
thirsty men - despite Livesey's well known temperance advocacy.

Local papers
were less eager to criticise gas workers who could well be purchasers of their
papers and local authority voters. South London Press described the strike committee
as 'a fine intelligent body of men' and ran a flattering profile of Will
Thorne together with a picture. South London Press also reported a request
of Livesey's for help with board and lodgings for replacement workers to a
local workhouse. The reply was 'do you think that this is a common lodging
house' and indeed the Vice-chairman of the Lambeth Board of Guardians was
currently speaking on gas worker platforms.

Activists in local political
parties gave some verbal support. Kennington Liberals had, in June, passed a
resolution of support for the gas workers and thi,s was followed by Dulwich and
Penge Liberals who passed a resolution against police brutality towards
strikers.

In order to support the strikers The Star was urging working class
consumers to burn large amounts of gas in order to help deplete supplies.
They also suggested that ratepayers be encouraged to summon the Company for an
inadequate gas supply. This move was attempted in Bermondsey where a
deputation to the local vestry was led by Harry Quelch, the SDF activist. He
urged that body to sue the Gas Company for breach of contract by reason of the
poor quality of the gas. He was backed by a Vestryman, Dr.Esmonde, who said
that the poor light was seriously affecting the eyesight of his patients
(laughter). It was decided that the Vestry should write to the Company
concerning this breach of contract. It was however, then pointed out by
officers that they had no formal contract with the Company - only an 'understanding'
and that any sueing would have to be done by the County Council.

It is,
therefore, probable that the gas workers enjoyed considerable support in South
London and where local authorities needed to look to their support as local
residents. Gas Companies need the support of their shareholders. Local
authorities need their voters.

The 'other' London Gas Companies (including some
more readily described as suburban) met again at the Cannon Street Hotel on
17th November with the Union leadership. This meeting concluded with a
large measure of agreement - so much so in fact that the Gas Workers' manifesto
published on 7th December was able to say ' they would always be indebted to
the kind consideration shown in every possible shape by the 'other companies'
and in particular by H.E.Jones, Chairman of the Commercial Company, who they
quoted as having said to them; 'your interests are our interests; we cannot do
without you.' While the Union 'devoutly wished for the peaceful working
of the men so admirably put by the Chairman at the Cannon Street Hotel'.

Jones
himself wrote to the Times on 9th December " to point out the benefits
that Livesey had brought to gas workers in the past and regretting what was
obviously a misunderstanding on all sides. What the Union should have, he said,
was 'attention and respect' and he pressed the right of the men to
combine. This was followed on 31st December by another letter from Jones who
was now 'overwhelmed by the virtues of the strike committee' .
Obviously both the 'other companies' and the Union were anxious that the
dispute should not spread beyond South Met. Commercial Company had never been
at loggerheads with South Met. in the way that Gas Light and Coke had been and
it may well have been that H.E.Jones hoped to effect some sort of
reconciliation between both parties. In any case he was concerned that his own
company, which did not have the sort of reserves that South Met. did to spend
on strike breaking, did not involve itself in an expensive dispute. The Union
must have been concerned that places in other works were kept open to provide
alternative employment for its men. In the depth of winter other London
companies could well be in need of experienced stokers.

Nonetheless the amount of
goodwill between these 'other companies' and the Union is surprising
considering the strike was taking place only a few miles away on the other side
of the river. As the gas supply produced by South Met. began to improve the
Union began to flounder and in its published statements began to modify the
terms on which men would return to the works. The Company continued to ignore
them - nointing out that the men had left legally and that there was no
dispute. Men could return if they wished; when vacancies arose.

Throughout the dispute a series of would-be mediators emerged, all dismissed as
meddlers by Robert Morton some months later. Two local Members of
Parliament, Causton and Beaufoy, put themselves forward and at the same time a
group of non-conformist ministers approached the Company, followed by a
local Church of England vicar. Towards the end of December a rather more
persistent approach was made by two members of the Labour Association - the
organisation concerned to promote the cause of profit sharing. Anxious that
their cause might be thrown into disrepute by too close a proximity to strike
breaking they hoped to find a solution. However, Ivimey and Greening were no
more successful than the churchmen.

It must be kept in mind that although the
Gas Workers' dispute was given most space in press headlines at the time, they
were supported by a concurrent strike of the Coal Porters Union under
the leadership of Michael Henry. This was a potentially bigger
affair because the Coal Porters covered much more industry than the Gas Workers
and could paralyse more generally. Through them the dispute spread to the Tyne
where Henry went to persuade colliers to black ships bound for South Met. works
in the Thames and through this the Sailors and Firemen's Unions were involved.
Ships on the river were picketed and some crews taken off. This part of
the dispute involved a Conference at the Mansion House with Cardinal
Manning and other 'self appointed meditators". Livesey dismissed this
Conference, saying that such people had no understanding of the dispute nor of
the conditions prevailing in industry.'

Another concurrent strike took
place at the Government owned Arsenal gas works. The men came out on the eight
hours issue and led to questions about their conditions being asked in
Parliament.

The Gas Workers Union were aware that they could win with the
help of other unions and as early as 1st. December speakers on their platforms
asked 'whether the trade unions of England would allow them to be defeated?'
' By 21st December they had put out a statement saying that while they could
not accept the agreements 'we cannot forget the attachment that we feel to our
old employers ... and. nothing would give us greater satisfaction than a return
to our previous relations '. While the leadership made statements like this to
management the kind of rhetoric emanating from mass demonstrations was
beginning to sound increasingly' hollow. One such speaker threatened Livesey's
life, to be condemned by all sides.

By 25th December speakers were
threatening to bring out the men at the Beckton works. They did not do so and
once other branches of the Union did not come out in sympathy there was no hope
that South Met. men could win the dispute. South Met. was making gas for their
customers; the Union members were all out of work - all they could do was to
try and persuade Livesey to take them back. 'Mr. Livesey had said if the
strikers went ' back to work they have to go back for twelve hours - they had
come out for eight hours and would go back for eight hours and the dignity of
Englishmen would not let them do anything else. They were not going to creep
and crawl to Livesey for work... ' This is all fine and stirring stuff. Even Will
Thorne must have known that they had not come out for eight hours but for the
right to organise - and that they were in fact already creeping and crawling to
Livesey for work.

Other trade unions had not really rallied round. A meeting of
unions at Mile End advised the Gas Workers to go to the London Trades Council
and get them to sort out some kind of settlement. The Hatters (800 in number)
agreed to a weekly levy of 1/- per man and the Glass Blowers pledged £5 a week.
This help was intended to keep the families of 3,000 gas workers. Hugh Brown
said that; 'he could not blind himself to the fact that trade unionists
throughout England had not rallied to give them aid' and Harry Quelch
said he knew why.. 'the trade unions had too long been the aristocracy of
Labour and cared no more for the Gas Workers in their struggle.... than if
they had been the red Indians. '

Nevertheless the rhetoric continued 'The
public does not seem to grasp the meaning of the strike ... they did not want
more money ... the fight was for liberty to combine and freedom'.

Losing
sympathy on all sides, the Gas Workers went to the London Trades Council who
co-ordinated a meeting between them, the Coal Porters, and the Sailors
and Firemen. Some sort of agreement was drawn up. The strike was called off.
They said that the Company had agreed to return to an eight hour system and to
take men back if and when vacancies occured. The Union added that they hoped
the Company would take back men with families first. The effect of this was
lost with Livesey's letter to The Times explaining that a ballot had been held
at the various works on the subject of the shift system and that men at most
works had voted to go back onto the eight hour day. If the twelve hour system
was to remain it was because the workers had voted for it themselves. He was
quite happy, he added, to take back old workers - he had indeed already taken
many back. Unfortunatly spring was coming and vacancies would be few.

If this
was an agreement it was of the most humiliating sort. Livesey did not have to agree to anything - he had already implemented most of
its clauses, or said he had. The strike had gained nothing but a lot of
destitute ex-gas workers. The strike headquarters now became a welfare agency
distributing charity to those without work. It was soon to be visited by
Livesey with a donation. The Union had instigated the strike with more rhetoric
than finance. The 'big names', men who had led successful strikes and becoming
known as Labour leaders - Burns, Tillett, even Thorne had kept well away. The
strike had been entirely run by local branch members. They had come
out on an issue not readily understood by the general public and not easily
sympathised with even by people who were committed trade unionists. They had
engaged in strike action involving thousands of workers needing strike pay with
virtually no reserves and dependent on other gas workers and street
collections. Because they depended on other members of the union remaining in
work they were not able to call them out and cripple the entire industry in
London. They had intitially prevaricated, not come out while the Company was
unprepared. They had given the Company time to prepare for a lengthy strike and
then given a week's notice. They had also taken on the only gas company with
any reserves - and those reserves were very considerable. They had continued to
persuade striking workers that they might win, even though the situation was
hopeless, with a degree of drama and rhetoric that had no relation to reality.

Their optimism and naivety was astounding and a contributory reason to the
decline of the union within the next few years must be the disillusionment of
ordinary workers with them.